GRUPO DE ECOLOGÍA INTEGRAL Red de Centros Sociales CPAL GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GROUP OF THE SOCIAL CENTERS NETWORK CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIALS FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (RCS-CPAL)
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GROUP OF THE SOCIAL CENTERS NETWORK CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIALS FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (RCS-CPAL)
Conferencia de Provinciales Jesuitas de América Latina y El Caribe (CPAL) Avda. Fulgencio Valdez, 780 – Breña 05-0052 – Lima 5 – PERÚ (+51) 1 433 8110 / 7747650 https://jesuitas.lat/ Casa Leiria Ana Carolina Einsfeld Mattos Ana Patrícia Sá Martins Antônia Sueli da Silva Gomes Temóteo Glícia Marili Azevedo de Medeiros Tinoco Haide Maria Hupffer Isabel Cristina Arendt José Ivo Follmann Luciana Paulo Gomes Luiz Felipe Barboza Lacerda Márcia Cristina Furtado Ecoten Rosangela Fritsch Tiago Luís Gil Editorial Board (UFRGS) (UEMA) (UERN) (UFRN) (FEEVALE) (UNISINOS) (UNISINOS) (UNISINOS) (UNICAP) (UNISINOS) (UNISINOS) (UnB)
CASA LEIRIA SÃO LEOPOLDO/RS 2022 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GROUP (RCS-CPAL)
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY GROUP OF THE SOCIAL CENTERS NETWORK CONFERENCE OF PROVINCIALS FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (RCS-CPAL) Editor: Casa Leiria Translation and proofreading: Andrea da Rosa All the references to the Laudato Si’ Encyclical Letter of the Holy Father Francis, in this work, are always abbreviated with LS, followed or not by the number of the corresponding paragraph. All the references to the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis, in this work, are always abbreviated with EG, followed or not by the number of the corresponding paragraph. International Data Publishing Cataloguing Librarian: Carla Inês Costa dos Santos – CRB 10/973
TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 Introduction 14 I. Integral Ecology 14 1. Perspectives of Integral Ecology 20 2. Pillars to support an Integral Ecology 22 3. Strategic spaces to thinking about Integral Ecology 25 II. Promotion of justice from the perspective of Integral Ecology 27 1. Strategic Agendas for Social and Environmental Justice 28 2. Levels of the transformative impact of Social and Environmental Justice 29 3. Common indicators for a collaborative path 32 References 34 Annex 1 Support guide for projects from the Integral Ecology perspective 34 Aspects about the perspectives that compose Integral Ecology 35 About the pillars 35 About strategic spaces 35 Aspects related to strategic agendas 37 Aspects related to Common Indicators 38 Annex 2 Dissemination materials of virtual seminars in Integral Ecology
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 9 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY Integral Ecology Peer Group CPAL Social Centers Network1 Introduction Considering that everything is closely related, and that current problems demand attention that takes into account all the factors of the world crisis, I propose that we now think about the different aspects of an integral ecology, which clearly incorporates human and social dimensions (LS, 137). The Integral Ecology Group was created in 2019, based on the XII Assembly of Social Centers of the Conference of Provinces from Latin America and the Caribbean (RCS/CPAL)2, in Puente Grande, Mexico. It is 1 This text was produced in collaboration between the members of the group Homólogos, under father Ivo Follmann’s supervision, with Dr. Felipe Lacerda as executive secretary. 2 More than 40 social centers participate in the RCS, interacting in three homologous groups: “Integral Ecology”, “Microfinance,” and “Democracy and Human Rights”: this network is coordinated by Piero Trepiccione, from Centro Gumilla, Venezuela, and is part of the Secretariat for the Social Apostolate of the CPAL, in charge of Carmen de los Ríos. The “Grupo de Ecologia Integral”, author of this document, is coordinated by José Ivo Follmann S. J., with the support of Luiz Lacerda, from OLMA, Brazil; and by the centers that integrate it: Paulo Tadeu S. J. and
10 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP currently coordinated by the National Observatory for Socio-Environmental Justice ”Luciano Mendes de Almeida” (OLMA) from Brazil and counts with the participation of the Amazon Service of Action, Reflection, and Socioenvironmental Education (SARES), also from Brazil; INFOCAP, from Chile; the Reflection, Research, and Communication Team (ERIC) from Honduras; the Human Rights Center ”Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (CPDH) in Mexico; the Network of Jesuit Social Centers (SEPSI) in Peru; and the Montalvo Cente, from the Dominican Republic. The mentioned social centers met in August 2019 to share experiences and, based on mutual knowledge, collectively draw up a Triennial Work Plan (2020-2023). This Plan, in its first year of execution, proposed, as its central objective, the elaboration of a “guideline framework for studying and working with Integral Ecology” that could be a reference for social centers, in addition to proposing agreements for the creation of its logo and thinking about how issues related to Integral Ecology apply in other CPAL networks and spaces, in articulation with the global bodies of the Society of Jesus and other institutions and external networks. It, therefore, is the document presented here. To ensure that its construction would be the result of an organic, collective, and participatory process, based on the study and production of knowledge, as well as on concrete practices of specific social actors in different territories, the social centers that constitute the Integral Ecology Group organized a series of monthly virtual seminars, with special guests able to represent both technical and academic voices and the voice of the peoples and popular and social movements of Latin America and the Caribbean. Therefore, the following topics3 were addressed: Lidiane Cristo for SARES, Brazil; Javier Rojas for INFOCAP, Chile; Pedro Landa and Elvin Hernández for ERIC, Honduras; Meyatzin Velasco Santiago for the CPDH, Mexico; Rómulo Torres for SPESI, Peru; and Heriberta Fernández Liriano from Centro Montalvo, Dominican Republic. 3 In the Annex n. 2, we included the diffusion materials of the Virtual Seminars in Integral Ecology. The videos are available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-zkIm3T0gs&list=PL9i Yeh-aBzdsyxMtqbJc1VEWnJTKN6tY-&index=2.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 11 • Inaugural Seminar: Integral Ecology, Climate Crisis, and Pandemic, with Friar Sinivaldo Tavares OFM (Researcher at Faculdade Jesuíta de Teologia e Filosofia – FAJE, Brazil) and Adelson Araújo S.J. (Faculdade Gregoriana, Rome). • Seminar 1: Integral Ecology and Social and Environmental Justice, with José Ivo Follmann S. J. (Director of OLMA, Secretary for the Promotion of Social and Environmental Justice of the Province, and Researcher at Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos – UNISINOS, Brazil) and Marcivania Sateré Mawé (Manaus Indigenous Leadership, Coordinator of Indigenous Peoples of Manaus and its surroundings – COPIME, Brazil). • Seminar 2: Integral Ecology and Human Rights, with Jorge Padilla (La Universidad Iberoamericana – Mexico) and Mónica López (Radio Huayacocotla, Voz Camponesa, Mexico). • Seminar 3: Green jobs for sustainable reactivation, with Ana Belém Sanches (World Labor Organization – ILO); Monica Gazmuri (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO, Chile); José Salas (Costa Rican Chamber of Industries). • Seminar 4: Integral Ecology and Synod for the Amazon: with Zenildo da Silva (Rector of the Seminary of the Archdiocese of São José, Archdiocese of Manaus, Auditor of the Synod for the Amazon), Anitalia Kuyuedo (Leadership of the Okaina people, Colombian Amazon, member of the REPAMColombia, defender of territory and food sovereignty), and Lidiane Cristo (SARES Social Analyst – Brazil). • Seminar 5: Integral Ecology and Territory Defense: with Juventino Gálvez (University Rafael Landívar); Omar Serrano (Vice-rector of Social Projection at UCA, José Simeón Cañas); Berta Zúniga (Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations from Honduras), and Adilia Castro (San Alonso Rodríguez Foundation, accompanying the defenders of Guapinol, Honduras).
12 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP All the expositions made during these seminars were recorded and transcribed, thus generating a systematized material as support for the elaboration of the Guidance Framework that we present. Subsequently, each of the social centers that are part of the Integral Ecology Group shared this systematization with their researchers, academics, social leaders, and people from other sectors of their provinces in order to collect extended contributions for this document4. In the third and final stage, representatives of the Integral Ecology Group carried out a new detailed study of the document prepared, thus, consolidating the final text, upon presentation of the document to the General Assembly and Directors of Social Centers. This “Guidance Framework for Studying and Working with Integral Ecology” intends to be a practical and purposeful document that helps social centers and other sectors of CPAL, social works of other conferences, as well as other institutions, in the deepening of its affective and practical commitment in tune with the necessary ecological conversions that are described throughout the encyclical Laudato Si’. The document is in close agreement with the Strategic Plan (2020-2023) of the CPAL Social Centers Network in its mission to: “contribute to overcoming socio-economic inequalities, socio-environmental impacts and the degradation of democracies in Latin America and the Caribbean, through alternatives for social transformation based on justice and reconciliation.” The text we present is divided into two main parts that offer, firstly, the conceptual elements, the principles, as well as the fundamental pillars of Integral Ecology, and secondly, the operationality (practical hints) of this concept, through the perspective of Socio-Environmental Justice and its different dimensions of incidence: strategic agendas and common indicators. There is a support guide attached for projects to be aligned from 4 Other people reviewed and collaborated with the construction of this document, in addition to the speakers of the mentioned Virtual Seminars: Adelson Araújo S.J. (Gregorian University of Rome, Italy), Ana Belén Sanches (World Labor Organization – ILO, Chile), José Salas ( Chamber of Industries, Costa Rica), Monica Gazmuri (UNESCO, Chile), Mónica López (Radio Huayacocotla – Voz Camponesa, Mexico).
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 13 the perspective of Integral Ecology (n. 1), as well as the dissemination materials of the Virtual Seminars on Integral Ecology (n. 2) systematized here. Enjoy your reading! Integral Ecology Group (RCS / CPAL) July 2021
14 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP I. INTEGRAL ECOLOGY 1. Perspectives of Integral Ecology The concept of Integral Ecology, referred to by Pope Francis in the encyclical Laudato Si’, is inspired by the witness of Saint Francis of Assisi, being, therefore, the fundamental reference paradigm of our Social Apostolate for the Promotion of Justice. According to the Pope, the Saint of Assisi “ is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically. (LS, 10). The concept of Integral Ecology proposes a paradigmatic change, an epistemological rupture with what has been denounced in the studies that are taking place in our Common Home, on the human root of the ecological crisis towards the signs of life described in the Gospel of Creation, and the refoundation of an incarnated and committed ecological spirituality. This perspective is not purely theoretical or intra-ecclesiastical; on the contrary, it directly affects the structures that organize society and its political, economic, cultural, social, and environmental dynamics. This paradigm shift, which sensitively dialogues with the cry of the Earth and the poor, therefore, requires a significant change in the way of proceeding and, consequently, in the conception of the world around us. The dialogues carried out during the virtual seminars, as well as the studies accumulated over these five years of the encyclical Laudato Si’ allow us to systematize this paradigm shift to understand it from five central perspectives: a) Systemic perspective: Everything is interconnected! It is necessary to have a broad perception of phenomena and realities. These ancient stories, full of symbolism, bear witness to a conviction which we today share, that everything is interconnected, and that genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others. (LS, 70).
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 15 Given the complexity of the reality that surrounds us, it is imperative to understand that everything is connected and that it is no longer possible to separate, for example, the social crisis from the environmental crisis. Effectively, these phenomena are closely linked, demanding, thus, a systemic view that can encompass the full range of causes and effects of a given event. In the same way, and contrary to the hegemony of the anthropocentric view, this perspective also inclines us to understand the integrality of everything that is alive, expanding our understanding of the physical, emotional, cognitive, and spiritual dimensions of those beings who share the Common Home with us, including herself, Mother Earth, as a living and sensitive being, endowed with the metabolism of its own. b) Transdisciplinary perspective: We will not be able to generate answers in a simple and dissociated way if what we see in front of us are complex and multifaceted problems. We need to produce an ecology of knowledge. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature (LS, 139). To effectively move towards a more systemic and integral approach, it is necessary to listen to different voices and knowledge. Interdisciplinarity is a central point for this paradigm shift and, as Pope Francis has already highlighted, invites us to listen especially to the voices of those peoples that have historically been silenced. These peoples, in their territories, in a relationship of respect with nature, effectively present us with an example of another possible paradigm of humanity. In the different areas of knowledge production, such as schools, universities, or even the context of our projects and social actions production,
16 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP this listening, therefore, relates to the cognitive justice that demands from modern Western science and its actors a profound humility movement. Transdisciplinarity is the integral dialogue necessary for this paradigm shift, and it also forces us to know how to dialogue with the difference, with the opposite position, and absorb constructive criticism. At the same time, it makes us vigilant to always guarantee the defense of fundamental principles related to the promotion of life. These principles are currently victims of a certain extravagant and decontextualized discursive relativism. c) Transcendental and transgenerational perspective: God is also present (incarnate) in nature, which must be preserved for future generations. When we can see God reflected in all that exists, our hearts are moved to praise the Lord for all his creatures and to worship him in union with them. This sentiment finds magnificent expression in the hymn of Saint Francis of Assisi […] (LS, 87). They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations (LS, 109). Thinking holistically also requires us to be able to overcome the immediacy of modern culture that ultimately leads to throwaway culture and superficial relationships. This overcoming, in the socio-environmental scope, explained in the encyclical Laudato Si’, invites us to live and enjoy the beauties and benefits of this Planet, thinking about the benefit of those who will come in the future. This perspective dialogues with others mentioned here, as it calls us to change our ethical posture, directly linked to our habits and customs. Furthermore, future generations, in fact, are already here, on the global and regional scenery, demanding their space and the hearing of their voices. In this sense, dialoguing directly with our Universal Apostolic Pref-
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 17 erences (UAPs), we urgently need to open spaces for dialogue with young people to learn how to listen to them. This perspective of a paradigm shift highlights the transcendental dynamics of what we see and experience. For us, this dimension is precisely the incorporation of spirituality and Christian hope as a fundamental element for an integral understanding of what is alive, what happens, and how the creative spirit of the universe manifests and materializes itself in every way. In this sense, the transcendental perspective of this paradigm shift is also counter-hegemonic in the face of a materialist culture that only believes in what can be measured and controlled by scientific parameters. d) The ethical perspective of care, justice, and harmony: We are relational beings. It is necessary to refound the relationships between humans and between them and nature in a dynamic of affection and care. If we approach nature and the environment without this openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously (LS, 11). All the previous perspectives are related to an empathic expansion to hear the cry of the Earth and peoples. This cognitive and procedural opening should effectively lead us to the consolidation of new ethics, directed towards an Ethics of Care. Here, it is not exclusively about the ethics set between human beings but also between humans and other living beings. This movement will be able to expand our awareness from the position we occupy today, as users of the benefits of this system (consumers), to an awareness of guardians of everything alive. The essential condition of the Human Being in Integral Ecology must be the guardian of everything alive. The performing of this
18 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP perspective may allow us to deepen the mission of establishing just relationships with other beings and with the Gifts of Creation, but it will require a shift in consciousness from an anthropocentric to a more ecocentric perspective. e) Contextual and cultural perspective: All knowledge must relate to a territory, a home; we all have a home about which we talk. Respect must also be shown for the various cultural riches of different peoples, their art and poetry, their interior life and spirituality. If we are truly concerned to develop and ecology capable of remedying the damage we have done, no branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out, and that includes religion and the language particular to it (LS, 63). It is worth noticing that this paradigm shift invites us to take a closer look at the territories and all the knowledge of those who have been inhabiting them for centuries. Dialogue, care, systemic perception, and all other perspectives of this Integral Ecology designed here are not abstract nor purely theoretical; they must be understood as something that manifests itself in a specific territory, in a specific culture, with history, actors, and, also, specific structures, which must be perceived and respected in all their complexity. In this systemic complexity, in which Integral Ecology claims that everything is interconnected, a multiplicity of universes that coexist with reality opens up, a pluriverse that once was denied by contemporary linear reason rooted in the idea of progress and technical and monetary development. The union of these perceptions clearly signals the principles that support the new paradigm proposed by Integral Ecology. In the context of this Guideline Framework, all projects, actions, and processes designed by our work within the scope of Integral Ecology are invited to examine their interactions carefully.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 19 Image 1: Perspectives from the Integral Ecology Paradigm. Source: Integral Ecology Group-CPAL. It is also worth highlighting a fundamental element in the concept of Integral Ecology that refers to the notion of “common good”, a central and unifying axis of the social ethics proposed in the encyclical Laudato Si’: […] ‘the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment’ (LS, 156). This perception presupposes the understanding of human beings as subjects of inalienable rights, guaranteeing their social well-being based on the principle of sustainability and peace. Systemic Perspective INTEGRAL ECOLOGY Contextual and Cultural Perspective Transdisciplinar Perspective Transcendental and transgenerational Perspective Ethical perspective: care, justice, and harmony
20 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP It is worth remembering that in our methods of planning actions and projects, we are invited to incorporate the ability to contemplate and “reconnect” with the vital principle that goes beyond our own thoughts and propositions; perhaps, this is not the final moment but, precisely, the beginning of a change of attitude and a new paradigm, an authentic conversion to integral ecology: An integral ecology includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the Creator who lives among us and surrounds us, whose presence ‘must not be contrived but found, uncovered’ (LS, 225). 2. Pillars to support an Integral Ecology What should sustain the paradigm shift movement? What should we rely on to promote an Integral Ecology? The answers to these questions, as we highlighted earlier, are explained in the Mission of the Society of Jesus. In general and in line with our mission and preferences, we realize that two main pillars can support the paradigm shift towards the consolidation of an integral ecological approach: a) Recognition of human dignity and especially solidarity with the world’s poor and excluded: We must support all our speech and action in the maximum possible conception of human dignity and its fundamental rights. Any paradigm shift is inconceivable without preserving minimum and integral conditions for everyone. In this sense, a closer look at all the victims of violence, persecution, and socioeconomic inequalities is non-negotiable; and it requires dialogue and fraternal acceptance of all cultures, colors, creeds, nationalities, and orientations.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 21 Human dignity not only as a victim but also in law, in the place of belonging, in self-love and pride in who we are, whatever it is, is a structuring and non-negotiable pillar of this new paradigm that we want to build. b) Care for the gifts of Creation: The second pillar that sustains this Integral Ecology and its different perspectives is, precisely, the care for the gifts of creation, Planet Earth, the “Pacha Mama.” There are at least two specific dimensions here: the first is that we assume our place as guardians of nature and effectively transform our ways of living and producing in society into something truly more sustainable and harmonious. Secondly, to ensure a change of consciousness, which will require us to be humble to learn from Mother Earth, understanding her as a living organism, with her own wisdom, in a brotherhood relationship, like Saint Francis, with her elements and beings in a much more “ecocentric” consciousness. In fact, we can see the direct relationship of these pillars that support Integral Ecology with our Universal Apostolic Preferences. Precisely these two great pillars, human dignity and the care of the Common Home, suggest a point of view through which we must always understand the implications of previously systematized perspectives and, therefore, of Integral Ecology. In other words, it is practically impossible for something that does not respect human dignity and the care of the Common House, inseparably, to be registered within the universe of actions linked to Integral Ecology. In turn, uniting critical reflection from these perspectives, based on these structuring pillars, we have a good reading key to understand and foster Integral Ecology in our different spaces, projects, actions, practices, and reflections.
22 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 3. Strategic spaces to thinking about Integral Ecology Throughout our studies and virtual seminars, we noticed some predominant spaces in which we could effectively and efficiently operate this paradigm shift, using the previously mentioned perspectives. They are certainly not the only strategic spaces in which we can think of a transforming action, but at the same time, it seems to us that those presented below dialogue with an explicit demand for ecological conversion on our part, as a Church, but also as a society. Thus, we approach a more concrete aspect of our conceptual elaboration, seeking to understand - in each of the following spaces - how we can advance in the perspectives we design on the universe of Integral Ecology and its respective support pillars. a) Everyday space (individual and community): It refers to practices related to our daily life and how we establish relationships with what we produce and consume, with ourselves, with others, and the environment that surrounds us. It envisions in what Pope Francis called an “ecology of everyday life” that suggests an “inner conversion”: Authentic development includes efforts to bring about an integral improvement in the quality of human life, and this entails considering the setting in which people live their lives. These settings influence the way we think, feel and act. In our rooms, our homes, our workplaces and neighborhoods, we use our environment as a way of expressing our identity (LS, 147). b) Institutional space: It refers to the examination of our own institutions, how they relate to suppliers, the just relationships they establish with employees and beneficiaries, the use of water, the
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 23 quantifiable renewable energy involved in our works, etc. Under the responsibility of Catholic institutions around the world, we have the management of many homes, schools, hospitals, social centers, institutions of higher education. To paraphrase Gandhi: we must be ourselves the change we want to see in the world, starting, in the institutions for which we are responsible, the paradigm shift that we propose for the whole of society. If everything is related, then the health of a society’s institutions has consequences for the environment and the quality of human life. ‘Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the environment.’ In this sense, social ecology is necessarily institutional, and gradually extends to the whole of society, from the primary social group, the family, to the wider local, national and international communities (LS, 142). c) Social space: Understood as a broader space - the collective environment, places of interaction with different identities, spaces of dispute, conflict, and negotiation, spaces of the “political thing.” The social dimension invites us to think about deepening democracy, defending human rights, building a sustainable urban environment and a rural environment endowed sufficiently with rights and structures that allow peasant populations a dignified life. It is the space of the economy, public policies of transport, education, health, among other policies that directly affect the lives of the population. Given the real potential for a misuse of human abilities, individual states can no longer ignore their responsibility for planning, coordination, oversight and enforcement within their respective borders. How can a society plan and protect its future amid constantly developing technological innovations? One authoritative source of oversight and coordination is the law, which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good. The limits which a healthy, mature and sovereign society must impose are those related
24 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP to foresight and security, regulatory norms, timely enforcement, the elimination of corruption, effective responses to undesired side-effects of production processes, and appropriate intervention where potential or uncertain risks are involved. (LS, 177). Effectively, each of these spaces is a field of forces, with different actors, agendas, and interests that dispute different narratives and practices. In the Latin American and Caribbean reality, in addition to the natural play of distinct forces of power, these spaces are also permeated by a context of historical injustices, social silencing, and negligence of determined elites concerning a large part of the population. This phenomenon leads to the consolidation of spaces permeated by deep social inequalities, which ends up placing such political, social, and ecclesiastical actors in different perspectives of possibility and action, consequently generating unfair relationships. It allows us to realize that Integral Ecology and its perspectives, upon landing in Latin American and the Caribbean territory permeated by such structural social inequalities, need an operational concept of justice that can be effective in strategic agendas and areas of incidence. It is the perspective of justice linked to Integral Ecology that we wish to emphasize in the following part of this document.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 25 II. PROMOTION OF JUSTICE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTEGRAL ECOLOGY If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships (LS, 119). While the practice of “social justice” is the care of human beings within the social organization that involves just ways of organizing society, “environmental justice” is the care of human beings in their natural habitat, involving the care for life in all its diversity as a gift from the Creator. There is a new challenge for our work to promote justice implicit in the broad concept of Integral Ecology. This concept is based precisely on the principles that support it as a paradigm shift, as an expansion of the perception of the reality in which we live through a systemic vision in which everything is interconnected and implies, therefore, an inter and transdisciplinary view of the phenomena. It is an invitation for us to participate in the struggle for social and environmental justice in an integrated manner. In other words: an invitation to promote Social and Environmental Justice. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature (LS, 139). As described in the first three chapters of the Encyclical Laudato Si’, we have been building and living in a sick society, which throughout
26 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP modernity has intensified a rhythm of life, decontextualizing practices, and relativizing principles. We have built an irrational belief in progress and modes of production and consumption that are harmful to interpersonal relationships. We have advanced in the commodification of nature, the privatization of public spaces, and, consequently, the loss of biodiversity that threatens all forms of life on Earth. With this technicist and egocentric lifestyle, we generated climate change, forced migration, and, ultimately, degradation of the quality of life for everyone and everything. The promotion of Social and Environmental Justice, reflected in the precepts of Integral Ecology, is urgent. “Promotion of Social and Environmental Justice” (PSEJ) is understood to mean all those actions that collaborate to overcome the injustices present in our historical heritage and reproduced by the current model of extractive and financial development, generating social inequalities and indescribable environmental aggressions. In the concept of Integral Ecology presented to us by Pope Francis, in his Encyclical Laudato Si,’ there is implicit signaling of the concept of (in)justice that involves our coexistence in the Common Home in all areas of its relationships, with an invitation to an urgent and necessary process of reconciliation and building just relationships (MPJSA, 2020). It is precisely in the face of this signal, which emphasizes the unjust character of our society, seeking a paradigmatic transformation with perspectives and pillars extolled by Integral Ecology, that socio-environmental justice is called to be present as word and action in the most diverse strategic spaces, such as the highlighted here, seeking through an integral posture, to build just relationships. In this unfair social scenario and in these strategic spaces in which socio-environmental justice seeks to produce its impacts, we find a variety of themes. All of them demand an integral vision with ethical and systemic perspectives. Among the listening and reflections that we carried out during the virtual seminars that supported the construction of this document, as well as the subsequent readings and studies on the evils that affect Latin American and Caribbean peoples, we highlight some strategic agendas for Social and Environmental Justice and, thus, for Integral Ecology.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 27 1. Strategic Agendas for Social and Environmental Justice The strategic agendas we are now talking about are guidelines, themes, and areas of action relevant to the construction of a more just society, where the promotion of Social and Environmental Justice is inserted as an operative concept of Integral Ecology. The Network of Social Centers of the Conference of Provinces of Latin America and the Caribbean (RCS/CPAL) is part of a broad spectrum of actions, projects, territories, and areas of activity that we obviously could not cover in their entirety in the pages that follow. However, through attentive listening and in-depth studies on our realities and the profile that, in general, constitute the social centers articulated in this Network, we can highlight some relevant themes to be attentive from a socio-environmental perspective of justice and Integral Ecology. • Interreligious dialogue and the fight against intolerance. • Education for ethnic-racial relations and the struggle against racism and ethnic discrimination. • Safe and healthy childhood and youth. • Migrants, refugees, right to housing. • Gender and the struggle against male chauvinism and homophobia. • Public policies, defense of democracy, human rights, defense of political prisoners, and defense of environmental defenders. • Native peoples, defense of traditional territories, popular education, popular knowledge, agroecology, and family farming. • Defense of biomes and ecosystems, combating large mining and infrastructure projects and rights of nature, defense of water. • Decent and dignified work, sustainable employment, conscious consumption, sustainable economy, microfinance and alternative economies, energy transition.
28 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP Effectively, it is not a matter of restricting the thematic coverage of our actions, but, on the contrary, of sustaining a practical and concrete perception of what we are really working on in our different spaces and territories when it comes to the promotion of Social and Environmental Justice. 2. Levels of the transformative impact of Social and Environmental Justice Based on the Integral Ecology Homologues Group, we can systematize the incidence possibilities at three levels. a) Production of knowledge: Through the recognition of the different ways of knowing and perceiving life and things, beyond the simple disciplinary knowledge of the academic world; therefore, in the effort to overcome the abyss that separates academically valued knowledge on the one hand and, on the other, popular, everyday, collective, traditional knowledge, generally excluded from the scientific-rational world. Our strategic agendas must seek the dialogue with and between the different knowledge (academic, popular, collective, etc.) existing in each territory, obeying the systematic and transdisciplinary principle of Integral Ecology and, consequently, of Socio-environmental Justice. b) Decision-making in society: With an open and non-excluding attitude, creating increasingly democratic practices, generating an authentic and broad culture of participation and recognition of the dignity of the subjects involved in political, economic, social, cultural, and institutional decisions, we suggest the advance towards more innovative ways of implementing and evaluating public policies, based on more sustainable indicators and the pursuit of equity and political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental justice.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 29 c) Everyday practices: It is the field of everyday life, care, and just relationships in life; space and time for sedimentation – affirmation of the care of our Common Home and the recognition of the other. We are all called to a radical socio-environmental conversion in our daily practices, personal or institutional. 3. Common indicators for a collaborative path Diversity is a strong imperative in the CPAL Social Centers Network: we are in many places and working on many things that involve different people, cultures, and challenges. A practical and effective way to ensure a collective and collaborative path is to share common indicators. In addition to a theoretical and practical alignment on Integral Ecology and its operational derivation: Socio-environmental Justice, the coordination of indicators among different groups can effectively help by treading a common path. For this, we try to highlight here some indicators that can help us in topics on Integral Ecology and Socio-environmental Justice. a) International human rights system: This framework aims to develop and promote respect for the human rights of all people, enshrined in the Universal Declaration and specified in various international conventions and treaties adopted by an expressive number of States, including the International Covenant on Human Rights, Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), whose common preamble proclaims the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. At the regional level, it is worth highlighting the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation, and Access to Justice in Environmental Affairs in Latin America and the Caribbean – known
30 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP as the Escazú Agreement, which recently entered into force upon being ratified by 24 countries in the region. For this framework, universal protection systems from the UN and regional systems of the inter-American system were created. These systems include mechanisms to monitor compliance with treaties, such as carrying out a periodic review of the fulfillment of each State’s human rights obligations and commitments before the United Nations Human Rights Council. b) Universal Apostolic Preferences (UAP): After a long debate, the Society of Jesus listed four apostolic preferences that became relevant indicators used to understand if our projects and actions are aligned with the steps taken and desired by the Society: i) Showing the way to God, through Spiritual Exercises and discernment; ii) Walking with the poor, the discarded of the world, the vulnerable in their dignity in a mission of reconciliation and justice; iii) Accompanying young people in creating a hopeful future and; iv) Collaborating in the care of the Common Home. The UAPs are not only privileged indicators but also fundamental (basic) prerequisites for all the actions planned by CPAL’s social centers in the fields of Integral Ecology and Socio-Environmental Justice. c) ECOJESUIT Commitments: In 2020, after a series of dialogues with the participation of representatives of all the provincial Conferences, ECOJESUIT, the bodies of the global influence of the Jesuits in the field of ecology, formulated six global commitments that can also serve as indicators for the Integral Ecology and Socio-Environmental Justice projects; namely: i) Support family farming and peasant production chains; ii) Address socio-environmental integrity in the face of poverty and environmental degradation; iii) Advocate for climate action, considering human rights and indigenous peoples; iv) Strengthen the universities’ action platform in favor of Laudato Si’; v) Promote eco-spirituality
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 31 and critical awareness in basic education, and vi) Monitor and study emerging economic institutions in the global context. d) Strategic Plan 2020-2023 of the Social Centers Network: Based on this Plan, we highlight the goals (agreed guidelines) not as indicators of results, but as common horizons; namely: i) Promotion of the quality of democracy and alternative models of development in Latin America and the Caribbean, through urban culture, Integral Ecology, and the solidarity economy; ii) Promotion of spaces for training, analysis, and discernment to enable the development of social centers; and iii) Institutional strengthening in its articulation dynamics and commitment to justice and reconciliation. Each of these lines has its own actions and metrics planned to assess impacts and results. Goodness always tends to spread. Every authentic experience of truth and goodness seeks by its very nature to grow within us, and any person who has experienced a profound liberation becomes more sensitive to the needs of others. As it expands, goodness takes root and develops. If we wish to lead a dignified and fulfilling life, we have to reach out to others and seek their good. (EG, 9).
32 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP REFERENCES Compañía de Jesús. (2019). Preferencias Apostólicas Universales. Available at: https://www.jesuitas.lat. Compañía de Jesús. Quiénes somos. Available at: https://www.jesuits.global/ about-us/the-jesuits/. Compañía de Jesús. Congregación General 34. Available at: https://pedago giaignaciana.com/. Compañía de Jesús. Congregación General 35. Available at: https://www.edu catemagis.org/. Compañía de Jesús. Congregación General 36. Available at: https://www.edu catemagis.org/. Conferencia de Provinciales de América Latina y El Caribe. Quiénes somos. Available at: https://jesuitas.lat/somos/somos-la-cpal. ECOJESUIT. Compromisos frente al nuevo contexto postpandemia. Available at: https://www.ecojesuit.com/. Grupo de Ecología Integral (2020). Ecología Integral y Derechos Humanos – Seminario Virtual. Available at: Somos Jesuitas (YouTube). Grupo de Ecología Integral. Ecología Integral, Pandemia e Mudanzas Climáticas – Seminario Virtual. Available at: Somos Jesuitas (YouTube), 2020. Grupo de Ecología Integral. Empregos Verdes para uma Reativação Sustentável – Seminario Virtual. Available at: Somos Jesuitas (YouTube), 2020. Grupo de Ecología Integral. Plan Trienal de Trabajo 2020-2023. Organización de las Naciones Unidas. Objetivos para el Desarrollo Sustentable. Available at: https://unric.org/pt/objetivos-de-desenvolvimento -sustentavel/. Papa Francisco (2015). Encíclica Laudato Si’. Available at: https://www. vidanuevadigital.com/.
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 33 Papa Francisco (2015). Exhortación Apostólica Evangelii Gaudium. Available at: https://www.vidanuevadigital.com/. Provincia Jesuita del Brasil. Rede de Promoción de Justicia Socioambiental. Marco para Promoção da Justiça Socioambiental. 2020. Available at: https://olma.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MarcoPJSA-20 20-PUBLICA%C3%87AO-PROVISORIA-MAIO2020.pdf. Red de Centros Sociales de la CPAL. Plan Estratégico 2020-2023.
34 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP ANNEX 1 SUPPORT GUIDE FOR PROJECTS FROM THE INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PERSPECTIVE It is a simple guide that systematizes the elements presented throughout this document relating to the challenges for the planning, execution, or evaluation of actions aligned with the perspectives and pillars of Integral Ecology. This guide is not intended to be a definitive or closed framework; on the contrary, it wants to be open to complementary improvements according to the development of our practices and reflections in each social center or project. 1. Aspects about the perspectives that compose Integral Ecology This project or action we plan: • Does it contemplate a systemic perception of the phenomena, places, and people involved? • Does it promote dialogue between the different types of knowledge, guaranteeing, especially, the visibility of that knowledge that is not viable by the current hegemonic system? • Does it understand transcendent elements – the mysteries of life and the faces of God in nature and the poor – as well as having any specific concern, direct or indirect, with future generations? • Is it based on an ethics of care and socio-environmental justice? • Does it relate, observe, and respect the local cultural context where we are located and highlight the historical aspects of these territories?
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 35 2. About the pillars • How is it linked to the defense of human dignity and human rights? • How is it linked to the defense of the Common Home, the biomes, and ecosystems where it is located? 3. About strategic spaces • Does it dialogue with any element(s) of everyday life (individual or community), promoting a certain incentive to change in favor of Integral Ecology and Socio-environmental Justice? If so, which one(s)? • Does it dialogue with any element(s) of the social and/or political context, promoting a change in favor of Integral Ecology and Socio-environmental Justice? Which one(s)? 4. Aspects related to strategic agendas • With which strategic agendas does this project or action dialogue? At what levels?
36 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP Incidence Agenda Knowledge production Decisionmaking on society Everyday practices Interreligious dialogue and fight against intolerance Education to ethnic-racial relations against racism and ethnic discrimination Safe and healthy childhood and youth Migrants, refugees, and the right of housing Gender and the fight against male chauvinism and homophobia Public policies, defense of democracy, human rights, defense of political prisoners. Original peoples, defense of traditional territories, defense of biomes and ecosystems, water defense, combat of large mining projects, defense of environmental defensors, popular education, rights of nature Decent work, sustainable job, conscious consumption, sustainable economy, agroecology, and family agriculture Other(s)? Which one(s)?
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 37 5. Aspects related to Common Indicators • This project or action we plan: • Does it dialogue with any of the Sustainable Development Goals? With which one(s)? • Does it dialogue with the Universal Apostolic Preferences? With which one(s)? • Does it dialogue with the commitments proposed by ECOJESUIT? With which one(s)? • Does it dialogue with the Strategic Plan of the Social Centers Network? with which?
38 GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP ANNEX 2 DISSEMINATION MATERIALS OF VIRTUAL SEMINARS IN INTEGRAL ECOLOGY
GUIDANCE FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING AND WORKING WITH INTEGRAL ECOLOGY INTEGRAL ECOLOGY PEER GROUP 39 Watch seminars at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwHHlsKGFLo&list=PL9i-Yeh-aB zdsyxMtqbJc1VEWnJTKN6tYListen to them in podcast format at: Integral Ecology – Radio Progress (radioprogresohn.net)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz